`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`· · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·2· ·--------------------------------------
`· · ·RINGCENTRAL, INC.,
`·3
`· · · · · · ·Petitioner· ·Case IPR2021-00574
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`· · · · · · ·V.
`·5
`· · ·ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`·6
`· · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`·7· ·--------------------------------------
`·8· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI,
`·9· ·Ph.D., taken by Patent Owner, pursuant to
`10· ·Notice, via Zoom, on Friday, March 11, 2022,
`11· ·at 9:00 a.m., before Monique Cabrera, a
`12· ·Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, within
`13· ·and for the State of New York.
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 1
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S :
`·2· ·WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS, PLLC
`· · · · · · · Attorneys for Patent Owner
`·3· ·1735 Market Street - Suite A #453
`· · ·Philadelphia, PA· 19103
`·4
`· · ·BY:· JOHN WITTENZELLNER, ESQ.
`·5· · · · johnw@wsltrial.com
`· · · · · ABDUL ALTHEBAITY, ESQ.
`·6
`·7· ·ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
`· · · · · · · Attorneys for Petitioner
`·8· ·51 West 52nd Street
`· · ·New York, New York· 10019
`·9
`· · ·BY:· K. PATRICK HERMAN, ESQ.
`10· · · · pherman@orrick.com
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 2
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`·2· ·WITNESS· · · · · ·EXAMINATION BY· · · PAGE #
`·3· ·V. Madisetti, Ph.D· ·Mr. Herman· · · · ·4
`·4
`·5
`·6· ·EXH NO.· · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · ·PAGE #
`·7· ·Exhibit 2018 Declaration of Dr.
`·8· · · · · · · · ·Vijay Madisetti· · · · · · ·7
`·9· ·Exhibit 2013· Declaration of Vijay K.
`10· · · · · · · · ·Madisetti in support of
`11· · · · · · · · ·Estech System's Patent
`12· · · · · · · · ·Owner's response in
`13· · · · · · · · ·IPR2021-00574· · · · · · · ·8
`14· ·Exhibit 1001· U.S. Patent No. 6,067,349· ·10
`15· ·Exhibit 1004· U.S. Patent No. 5,841,838
`16· · · · · · · · ·Itoh reference· · · · · · ·63
`17· ·Exhibit 1006· U.S. Patent No. 5,117,451· ·86
`18· ·Exhibit 1003· U.S. Patent No. 5,841,838
`19· · · · · · · · ·in the '574 proceeding· · ·104
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 3
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · · · ·Whereupon,
`·2· · · · · · ·Vijay K. Madisetti, PH.D.,
`·3· ·after having been first duly sworn, was
`·4· ·examined and testified as follows:
`·5· · · · · ·COURT REPORTER:· Can you state your
`·6· ·name and address for the record.
`·7· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's Vijay K.
`·8· ·Madisetti, 56 Creekside Park Drive, Johns
`·9· ·Creek, Georgia 30022.
`10· ·BY MR. HERMAN:
`11· · · ·Q.· Good morning, Doctor.
`12· · · ·A.· Good morning, sir.
`13· · · ·Q.· My name is Patrick Herman and I am an
`14· ·attorney from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe,
`15· ·here today on behalf of Petitioner RingCentral
`16· ·in two IPR proceedings, and those are
`17· ·IPR2021-00573 and IPR2021-00574.
`18· · · · · ·Now, before we begin, I would like to
`19· ·go over a few basic ground rules to make sure
`20· ·we are on the same page.
`21· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`22· · · ·A.· Sounds good.
`23· · · ·Q.· So the first is that there is a
`24· ·reporter here who is going to be taking down
`25· ·my questions and your testimony, so it's
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 4
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·important that you respond verbally.
`·2· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`·3· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·4· · · ·Q.· It's also important that we not talk
`·5· ·over each other so that we have a clear
`·6· ·record.· So I will do my best to wait until
`·7· ·you finish an answer before asking another
`·8· ·question, and I will also ask that you wait
`·9· ·until I finish with my question before
`10· ·answering.
`11· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`12· · · ·A.· That's okay.
`13· · · ·Q.· Next you are entitled to a question
`14· ·that you understand.· So if there is anything
`15· ·unclear about any of my questions, please ask.
`16· ·Otherwise I will assume we are on the same
`17· ·page.
`18· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`19· · · ·A.· That's okay.
`20· · · ·Q.· Next, I ask that you not look at any
`21· ·documents on your computer or in your presence
`22· ·besides those that I provide to you during the
`23· ·deposition today, and if you do look at a
`24· ·document for some reason that I have not
`25· ·provided to you, I ask that you let me know.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 5
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`·2· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·3· · · ·Q.· Now, do you have any documents with
`·4· ·you today?
`·5· · · ·A.· No, I have not opened any.
`·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Now, I also ask that you not
`·7· ·have any side discussions with anyone using
`·8· ·text messaging, chat software, a cell phone or
`·9· ·the like while the deposition is underway.
`10· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`11· · · ·A.· Yes.
`12· · · ·Q.· Now, is there anything that would
`13· ·prevent or interfere with your ability to
`14· ·testify today?
`15· · · ·A.· No.
`16· · · ·Q.· Now, do you understand that you are
`17· ·here today to discuss two declarations that
`18· ·you submitted in the IPR proceedings that I
`19· ·mentioned a few moments ago?
`20· · · ·A.· Yes.
`21· · · ·Q.· I am going put copies of those
`22· ·declarations into the Zoom chat box,
`23· ·hopefully.
`24· · · ·A.· There is some scratchy noise and I
`25· ·don't know if that is from my laptop or is it
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 6
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·from yours, if anyone cannot hear it, that's
`·2· ·fine, but I think we have some microphone.
`·3· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· I've also heard
`·4· ·it.
`·5· · · ·Q.· There should be two documents in the
`·6· ·Zoom chat folder.
`·7· · · · · ·Do you see those?
`·8· · · ·A.· I do.
`·9· · · ·Q.· The first is a document that has been
`10· ·designated by Patent Owner as Exhibit 2018 in
`11· ·the 573 proceeding.
`12· · · · · ·(Whereupon, Exhibit 2018, Declaration
`13· ·of Dr. Vijay Madisetti, was identified.)
`14· · · ·Q.· What is that document?
`15· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Should I download,
`16· ·please, Counsel?
`17· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· Yes, and I
`18· ·recommend you keep a copy in an easy access
`19· ·location so we can go back and forth between
`20· ·exhibits.
`21· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
`22· · · · · ·Give me a second so I can download
`23· ·it.
`24· · · · · ·Yes, I have now downloaded them,
`25· ·Counsel.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 7
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·BY MR. HERMAN:
`·2· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So what is Exhibit 2018,
`·3· ·what's been designated as Exhibit 2018?
`·4· · · ·A.· It is my expert Declaration,
`·5· ·Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti in support
`·6· ·of Estech Systems Inc.'s Patent Owner response
`·7· ·for IPR2021-00573.
`·8· · · ·Q.· And that relates to Patent Number
`·9· ·6,067,349; is that right?
`10· · · ·A.· Yes.
`11· · · ·Q.· And would it be okay if I referred to
`12· ·that Patent today as the '349 patent?
`13· · · ·A.· Yes.
`14· · · ·Q.· Now, what is Exhibit 2013 in the 574
`15· ·IPR proceeding?
`16· · · ·A.· That is, again, the Declaration of
`17· ·Vijay K. Madisetti in support of Estech
`18· ·System's Patent Owner's response in
`19· ·IPR2021-00574.
`20· · · · · ·(Whereupon, Exhibit 2013, Declaration
`21· ·of Vijay K. Madisetti in support of Estech
`22· ·System's Patent Owner's response in
`23· ·IPR2021-00574, was identified.)
`24· · · ·Q.· And that relates to Patent No.
`25· ·8,391,298; is that right?
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 8
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·2· · · ·Q.· And would it be okay if I refer to
`·3· ·that as the '298 patent today?
`·4· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·5· · · ·Q.· So I would like to start by
`·6· ·discussing your '349 patent Declaration.· And
`·7· ·that's, again, Exhibit 2018 in the 573
`·8· ·proceedings; if you could get that in front of
`·9· ·you?
`10· · · ·A.· Okay.
`11· · · ·Q.· And I would like to direct your
`12· ·attention to a passage that begins in
`13· ·paragraph 62.· Can you turn to that, please?
`14· · · ·A.· Okay.· I am on paragraph 62 in my
`15· ·Declaration, Exhibit 2018.
`16· · · ·Q.· This paragraph is part of a section
`17· ·that relates to claim construction; is that
`18· ·right?
`19· · · ·A.· This paragraph?· Yes, this paragraph
`20· ·is part of Section 4, starting on paragraph 58
`21· ·on the previous page, entitled "Claim
`22· ·Construction."
`23· · · ·Q.· And the particular claim language
`24· ·that you are addressing, starting in paragraph
`25· ·62 is, "Telephone call/voice processing
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 9
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·system"; is that right?
`·2· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·3· · · ·Q.· Now, if you look at paragraph 63, you
`·4· ·reference a series of claims in that
`·5· ·paragraph.
`·6· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`·7· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·8· · · ·Q.· Now, there is no reference there to
`·9· ·Claim 1 of the '349 patent; true?
`10· · · ·A.· In this paragraph there is no
`11· ·reference to Claim Number 1.
`12· · · ·Q.· And that's because Claim 1 does not
`13· ·include the phrase "telephone call/voice
`14· ·processing system"; correct?
`15· · · ·A.· Could I look at the expert
`16· ·correspondence to the '349 patent?
`17· · · ·Q.· Sure.
`18· · · · · ·I am putting into the chat what has
`19· ·been designated as Exhibit 1001 in the 573
`20· ·proceeding.· Let me know when you have that.
`21· · · · · ·(Whereupon, Exhibit 1001, U.S.
`22· ·Patent No. 6,067,349, was identified.)
`23· · · ·A.· Yes, I've downloaded that, and I am
`24· ·going to open that.
`25· · · ·Q.· What is Exhibit 1001?
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 10
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·A.· Exhibit 1001 is the U.S. Patent,
`·2· ·6,067,349.
`·3· · · · · ·So could you please repeat your
`·4· ·question again, Counsel, with respect to the
`·5· ·claims of this Patent?
`·6· · · ·Q.· Sure.
`·7· · · · · ·So my question is:· Claim 1 is not
`·8· ·referenced in your paragraph 63 because it
`·9· ·does not include the words "telephone
`10· ·call/voice processing system."
`11· · · ·A.· My testimony was that I do not
`12· ·mention explicitly Claim 1 in paragraph 63.
`13· ·That's the extent of my testimony.
`14· · · ·Q.· So I am asking you why that's the
`15· ·case.· This Claim 1 is not referenced there
`16· ·because it does not include the particular
`17· ·claim language that you're discussing in
`18· ·paragraph 62 and 63.
`19· · · ·A.· That's not my testimony.· The claim
`20· ·speaks for itself.· It does not have the exact
`21· ·phrase.
`22· · · ·Q.· So you will agree --
`23· · · ·A.· It does not have the exact explicit
`24· ·phrase; that is, "telephone call/voice
`25· ·processing system," but I don't offer an
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 11
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·opinion about anything else other than that
`·2· ·the English language word, "telephone
`·3· ·voice" -- "telephone call/voice processing
`·4· ·system" isn't explicitly described as a phrase
`·5· ·in Claim 1.· Claim 6 depends on Claim 1.
`·6· · · ·Q.· And Claim 6 is a dependent claim; is
`·7· ·that right?
`·8· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·9· · · ·Q.· Which means that it's narrower than
`10· ·independent Claim 1?
`11· · · ·A.· Again, I don't -- the claims speak
`12· ·for themselves.· I do not wish to offer a
`13· ·legal opinion.
`14· · · ·Q.· So in forming your Declaration, did
`15· ·you have an understanding of what it means to
`16· ·be a dependent claim?
`17· · · ·A.· Yes.
`18· · · ·Q.· So what does it mean to be a
`19· ·dependent claim?
`20· · · ·A.· A dependent claim includes all the
`21· ·limitations of the independent claim on which
`22· ·it depends on and then adds -- and then has
`23· ·additional limitations.
`24· · · ·Q.· So a dependent claim adds limitations
`25· ·that are not found in an independent claim.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 12
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·That's what you just told me; correct?
`·2· · · ·A.· Again, I stick to my answer that a
`·3· ·dependent claim includes everything in the
`·4· ·independent claim and adds limitations.
`·5· · · ·Q.· So if you look at Claim 6, the only
`·6· ·limitation that Claim 6 adds is the
`·7· ·requirement that the steps of Claim 1 be
`·8· ·performed in a "telephone call/voice
`·9· ·processing system," correct?
`10· · · ·A.· As I described earlier, the claim
`11· ·speaks for itself.· I don't wish to summarize
`12· ·it in any way or limit its scope.· Claim 6 is
`13· ·described by the '349 as a matter as recited
`14· ·in Claim 1.· The steps are performed in the
`15· ·"telephone call/voice processing system."
`16· · · ·Q.· So, in authoring your Declaration,
`17· ·you compared Claim 6 to the prior art
`18· ·identified in the petition, true?
`19· · · ·A.· My Declaration, again, has for
`20· ·support some opinions and I opined -- I opined
`21· ·certain arguments and opinions with respect to
`22· ·Claim 6.
`23· · · ·Q.· But you understand in forming those
`24· ·opinions what Claim 6 requires, correct?
`25· · · ·A.· Yes.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 13
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·Q.· And the only thing that Claim 6
`·2· ·requires that is not part of Claim 1 is the
`·3· ·requirement that, quote, "The steps are
`·4· ·performed in a telephone call/voice processing
`·5· ·system," correct?
`·6· · · ·A.· Again, the claim speaks for itself.
`·7· ·For example, Claim 1 could have certain steps
`·8· ·that are not performed in the "telephone
`·9· ·call/voice processing system," while Claim 6
`10· ·requires all steps to be performed in the
`11· ·"telephone call/voice processing system."· So
`12· ·Claim 1 is broader than Claim 6, but yet could
`13· ·require a "telephone call/voice processing
`14· ·system" to perform some of the steps.
`15· · · · · ·So, again, the claims speak for
`16· ·themselves, and I defer to the plain language
`17· ·of the claims to set out the scope.· I don't
`18· ·wish to limit the scope in any manner.
`19· · · ·Q.· Let me see if I understand your
`20· ·answer.· So I think what you just said is that
`21· ·Claim 6 requires all of the steps of Claim 1
`22· ·to be performed in a "telephone call/voice
`23· ·processing system," correct?
`24· · · ·A.· That's not my -- that's not my
`25· ·testimony.· My testimony is that Claim 1 could
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 14
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·have a case where certain steps are not
`·2· ·performed in a telephone call/voice processing
`·3· ·system.
`·4· · · ·Q.· So I ask again --
`·5· · · ·A.· I didn't say that.· I did not say
`·6· ·anything about Claim 6.· Claim 6 is what is
`·7· ·described in the specification in the common
`·8· ·term.
`·9· · · ·Q.· I am going to read back exactly what
`10· ·you testified.· So your exact answer was:
`11· ·"Again, the claim speaks for itself.· For
`12· ·example, Claim 1 could have certain steps that
`13· ·are not performed in the telephone call/voice
`14· ·processing system, while Claim 6 requires" --
`15· ·and these are your words -- "all steps to be
`16· ·formed in the telephone call/voice processing
`17· ·system?"
`18· · · ·A.· I don't --
`19· · · ·Q.· That's what you said and that's what
`20· ·you testified.· So my question was:· You just
`21· ·testified that Claim 6 requires all the steps
`22· ·of Claim 1 to be performed in the "telephone
`23· ·call/voice processing system."· That's what
`24· ·you testified, correct?
`25· · · ·A.· I disagree.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 15
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· Object to form.
`·2· · · ·A.· To the extent that you are saying
`·3· ·that I said all steps, I correct it here. I
`·4· ·said that Claim 1 may have some of the steps
`·5· ·performed.· Claim 6 may have the steps
`·6· ·performed.· So whether it's all steps or
`·7· ·whether the steps, meaning all steps is,
`·8· ·again, a claim construction or a claim
`·9· ·construction that I do not offer at this
`10· ·point.
`11· · · · · ·All I can say is that, as I said
`12· ·earlier, I do not wish to limit the claims. I
`13· ·don't wish to express any of the claims in
`14· ·language other than how they are described in
`15· ·the specification, and I stand by Claim 6 as
`16· ·written in column 12, lines 3 to 4.· I do not
`17· ·wish to characterize it in any other way.
`18· · · ·Q.· So I am having difficulty
`19· ·understanding what you're saying about the
`20· ·claims.· I am having difficulty understand
`21· ·what you view the claims to require.· So let's
`22· ·talk about Claim 6, first.
`23· · · · · ·Claim 6 is a dependent claim that
`24· ·depends on Claim 1, and Claim 1 requires a
`25· ·series of steps; is that correct?
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 16
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·A.· Claim 1 is described in lines 29 to
`·2· ·46 of Column 11, and it is a method claim that
`·3· ·consists of a series of steps.
`·4· · · ·Q.· Now, Claim 6 requires those steps and
`·5· ·by "those steps," I mean the steps in Claim 1
`·6· ·to be performed by a "telephone call/voice
`·7· ·processing system," true?
`·8· · · ·A.· Again, I would defer to the claim
`·9· ·language itself and say that the method Claim
`10· ·6 recites on the third as is cited in Claim 1,
`11· ·wherein those steps are performed in a
`12· ·"telephone call/voice processing system."
`13· · · ·Q.· All right.· So Claim 6 requires the
`14· ·steps in Claim 1, as you've just said, to be
`15· ·performed by the "telephone call/voice
`16· ·processing system," correct?
`17· · · ·A.· As per Claim 6 it's the method or as
`18· ·recited in Claim 1 wherein the steps are
`19· ·performed in a "telephone call/voice
`20· ·processing system."
`21· · · ·Q.· And that particular claim is narrower
`22· ·than Claim 1, true?
`23· · · ·A.· As I said, the claim speaks for
`24· ·itself.· I don't wish to paraphrase them or
`25· ·limit their scope.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 17
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·Q.· So in offering your opinions, you had
`·2· ·no understanding whatsoever regarding whether
`·3· ·Claim 6 was broader or narrower than Claim 1.
`·4· ·Is that how you approached these claims in
`·5· ·offering your opinions in this case?
`·6· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· Objection to
`·7· ·form.
`·8· · · ·A.· As I said, I offered a technical
`·9· ·opinion and, in my opinion, Claim 1 cites a
`10· ·certain set of steps.· Claim 6 is a dependent
`11· ·claim, so it includes everything that the
`12· ·independent has and it adds additional
`13· ·limitations, and these additional limitations
`14· ·are described in Claim 6 as wherein the steps
`15· ·are performed in a "telephone call/voice
`16· ·processing system."
`17· · · ·Q.· So that additional limitation that
`18· ·you just referenced, wherein the steps are
`19· ·performed in a "telephone call/voice
`20· ·processing system," that additional limitation
`21· ·is not part of Claim 1, correct?
`22· · · ·A.· That language, wherein the steps are
`23· ·performed in a "telephone call/voice
`24· ·processing system," is not described in Claim
`25· ·1.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 18
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·Q.· That's not a limitation of Claim 1,
`·2· ·true?
`·3· · · ·A.· Again, the claim speaks for itself.
`·4· ·It says here that the steps -- that those
`·5· ·steps are performed in a "telephone call/voice
`·6· ·processing system," and in a nonlimiting
`·7· ·example, Claim 1 would include some steps that
`·8· ·could be performed in a "telephone call/voice
`·9· ·processing system."
`10· · · ·Q.· Now, if you look at paragraph 63,
`11· ·paragraph 63 cites a number of passages from
`12· ·the '349 patent; is that right?
`13· · · ·A.· Paragraph 63 of my Declaration on
`14· ·pages -- yes, paragraph 63 describes certain
`15· ·portions of the specification of '349.
`16· · · ·Q.· And you actually quote passages from
`17· ·the '349 patent; is that right?
`18· · · ·A.· I quote in terms of cite to the
`19· ·specific line numbers and certain excerpts
`20· ·from those lines.
`21· · · ·Q.· Now, certain of those quotations
`22· ·include the acronym EKT.
`23· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`24· · · ·A.· You are referring to, for example,
`25· ·and I already described them in Column 5,
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 19
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·lines 52 to 20 as an EKT 1400, which is
`·2· ·described as an electronic key telephone in
`·3· ·that embodiment.
`·4· · · ·Q.· So the acronym "EKT" stands for an
`·5· ·electronic key telephone; is that right?
`·6· · · ·A.· Yes, in this environment, yes.
`·7· · · ·Q.· What is an electronic key telephone?
`·8· · · ·A.· It's a type of telephone that has
`·9· ·keys that allow the phone to communicate and
`10· ·connect to different telephone lines.
`11· · · ·Q.· Now, another one of the passages that
`12· ·you quote here includes the acronym "KSU."
`13· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`14· · · ·A.· Yes.· That's under "environment."
`15· ·That refers to an example of a key system
`16· ·unit, KSU, in Column 6, lines 12 through 13.
`17· · · ·Q.· And what a key system unit?
`18· · · ·A.· Again, it is an example that is cited
`19· ·in the specification.· It is -- it works with
`20· ·EKT's.
`21· · · ·Q.· And how does it work with the EKT's?
`22· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· Objection to
`23· ·form.
`24· · · ·A.· How does it work?· It is a type of --
`25· ·I think there is some hardware that allows
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 20
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·multiple telephones -- that allows it to be
`·2· ·connected to multiple telephones.
`·3· · · ·Q.· Now, is it your opinion that the
`·4· ·claims that you reference in paragraph 63 are
`·5· ·limited to just systems that include an EKT
`·6· ·and a KSU?
`·7· · · ·A.· No.· As I said, I described here that
`·8· ·the claims speak for themselves.· I don't wish
`·9· ·to limit the claims in any way.· I was citing
`10· ·to certain examples in this specification
`11· ·which are examples.
`12· · · ·Q.· So it's your opinion that the
`13· ·passages that you cite in paragraph 63 relate
`14· ·to examples in the '349 patent, true?
`15· · · ·A.· Again, that's a generalization.· My
`16· ·opinions are described in my Declaration. I
`17· ·don't wish to summarize them in any other way.
`18· ·All I mention here is that EKT is a specific
`19· ·embodiment.
`20· · · ·Q.· So only one specific embodiment of
`21· ·what the '349 patent discloses, correct?
`22· · · ·A.· Again, the '349 speaks for itself.
`23· ·All I can say is I use EKT as an nonlimiting
`24· ·example of a certain type of electronic key
`25· ·telephone.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 21
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·Q.· And the combination of the EKT and
`·2· ·the KSU are also nonlimiting examples, true?
`·3· · · ·A.· Yes.· These are, again, nonlimiting
`·4· ·examples disclosed in the '349 patent.
`·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I would like you to get --
`·6· ·or at least revisit the '349 patent which you
`·7· ·should have already.· This is Exhibit 1001 in
`·8· ·the 573.
`·9· · · ·A.· I do.
`10· · · ·Q.· Now, all of the passages that you
`11· ·cite in paragraph 63 of your Declaration are
`12· ·found in the Patent detail description
`13· ·section; is that right?
`14· · · ·A.· Yes, in paragraph 63, yes.
`15· · · ·Q.· And that detailed description section
`16· ·begins starting in about Column 2 of the '349
`17· ·patent; is that right?
`18· · · ·A.· Column 2.· There is a section in
`19· ·Column 2, line 30, that is described as
`20· ·detailed, a description.
`21· · · ·Q.· In that section, that detailed
`22· ·description section includes all of the
`23· ·passages that you cite in paragraph 63 of your
`24· ·Declaration; correct?
`25· · · ·A.· I am going back to my Declaration.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 22
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·So in paragraph 63, I defer to Column 5,
`·2· ·Column 4, Column 6.· So Columns 4, 5 and 6 are
`·3· ·within -- within that section titled "Detailed
`·4· ·Description."
`·5· · · ·Q.· Now, that Detailed Description
`·6· ·section, starting at about line 32, has a
`·7· ·sentence that reads:· "In the following
`·8· ·description, numerous technical details are
`·9· ·set forth, such as specific word length and
`10· ·specific hardware interfaces, et cetera, to
`11· ·provide a thorough understanding of the
`12· ·present invention."
`13· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`14· · · ·A.· Yes.· You read from lines 32 to 35 of
`15· ·Column 2 of the '349.
`16· · · ·Q.· And then the same Detailed
`17· ·Description section goes on in Column 2,
`18· ·starting at line 35 to say:· "However, it will
`19· ·be obvious to those skilled in the art that
`20· ·the present invention may be practiced without
`21· ·such specific details."
`22· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`23· · · ·A.· You read again from lines 35 to 37
`24· ·with respect to the specific details which --
`25· ·which, again, is how the specification
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 23
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·describes it in lines 35 to 37.
`·2· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So one of the things that the
`·3· ·'349 patent is saying here is that you can use
`·4· ·the, quote, "specific hardware interfaces,"
`·5· ·end quote, discussed after this point, but you
`·6· ·don't have to, to practice the Patent's
`·7· ·invention; correct?
`·8· · · ·A.· As I said, I disagree with that
`·9· ·characterization.· I believe that the claims
`10· ·describe as mentioned, not the specification.
`11· · · ·Q.· So I'm talking about what the
`12· ·specification is saying here.· Those
`13· ·specifications say that you can use the,
`14· ·quote, "specific hardware interfaces," quote,
`15· ·the Patent discusses to practice